My opening paragraph to the above posting contained several spelling errors, here's a corrected version:
I'm a big fan of David Rovics 'protest folk singer' but think he's got a less than open mind on 9/11. The strongest point to his argument is the fact that "There would have had to have been so many different people involved in the conspiracy that one of them would have surely blown the whistle by now."
My point of view is that there are so many un-answered questions surrounding the 9/11 'bombing', and the U.S. Government seems to show no interest in answering them, or clearing peoples fears/suspicions (to my knowledge).
1. Where are the black-box flight recorders? (or was there one recovered from the Pennsylvania crash, otherwise how did they know a member of the passengers shouted 'Let's Roll'?
I wrote this piece (below) in my Kerouac Rag fanzine back in April 2003, long before I'd read any other questioning of the facts surrounding 9/11, I felt pretty 'out on my own' at the time and a bit scared:

I'm a big fan of David Rovics 'protest folk singer' but think he's got a less than open mind on 9/11. The strongest point to his argument is the fact that "There would have had to have been so many different people involved in the conspiracy that one of them would have surely blown the whistle by now."
My point of view is that there are so many un-answered questions surounding the 9/11 'bombing', and the U.S. Government seems to show no interest in answering them, or clearing peoples fears/suspicions (to my knowledge).
1. Where are the black-box flight recorders? (or was there one recovered from the Pensilvania crash, otherwise how did they know a member of the passengers shouted 'Let's Roll'?
I wrote this piece (below) in my Kerouac Rag fanzine back in April 2003, long before I'd read any other questioning of the facts surrounding 9/11, I felt pretty 'out on my own' at the time and a bit scarred:

----- Original Message -----
From: J

John wrote:

man i loved going to the twin towers...
i used to visit quite often.
we (the DEC) had an office
on the 33rd floor of tower two.
wonder how many people were killed
in that office on 9/11
i wonder that quite often. so
bomb on boys...
damn what's takin' you
so long.

Paul wrote:

Murder opened the gates.
They killed 3000 of us and you've gotten over it.

__________________________________

John & Paul - who's they? Bin Laden? al-Qaida? - come on!

I apply logic

Do you honestly think that a handful of Arab blokes can come to the States, take flying lessons lasting just two or three months (not bothering to learn how to take off and land), and then navigate a plane accurately thousands of miles across country to crash it successfully into the exact floor of a skyscraper where it will do most damage? And both these amateur pilots do it within minutes of each other, hitting the same floors of twin towers with the precision of an ace stunt flying team ( or as we'd say in Britain - The Red Arrows). If it were that easy don't you think terrorist held planes would (or will be) flying into skyscrapers all over the world, all the time?

Don't get me wrong, I feel for those poor people caught up in that catastrophe - broken nails gripping at a splintered floor as it slides sideway, under burning heat. But we owe to them, their relatives and ourselves to find out the truth. All those last minute cell-phone calls from the tower ("I love you darling") that re-affirmed our faith in love, it was true what the priest and Bob Dylan and the Bible said all along: "Love is all there is". You wouldn't scream into the phone: "Help!!!", or "Mum, get me outta here!!!" or "Oh God, I'm gonna die, please, please help someone.." , or "Call the fire-brigade!!!" or "Operator, I want the rescue services", but I hate myself for writing this in case I'm doing these dear souls a disservice (and one day I'll have to meet them face to face). But recently there was a tube train caught fire in it's subway in Japan or France or ... I forget where, and according to the news bulletin, victims were making desperate cell-phone calls from the burning train - but I noticed none of their calls were relayed over the news media, because I was listening out to see if they too were saying "I love you darling".

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] No, John & Paul, I'll tell you what happened. In democratic America, for whatever reason, the Establishment/State decided it wanted to go to war with the Arab world. So first it un-democratically fiddled a numb-scull like George W. Bush into power, 'cos as in Britain the Tories are always eager to go to war, so in America it's the Republicans who are the natural party of war. It knew that Al Gore wouldn't be keen to do it's bidding. Now a country led by a democratically elected government can't just go to war over a can of worms, it needs a big reason to sell to it's people because as P.G. reminds us: "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life......Naturally the common people don't want war.....and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along..... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - The wisdom of Hermann Goering (and latter day
apprentices!) - must admit I never saw myself as a apprentice of Hermann Goering (wasn't he a Nazi thug?), so in order to invade somewhere like Afghanistan (and library reference books were already recording that the US had broken off diplomatic relations with and didn't recognise the Taliban regime for harbouring "the terrorist bin Laden") a "democratically elected" government has to have a bloody good reason - like Pearl Harbour! (and does anybody know why the Japanese invaded the American Fleet in Pearl Harbour in (was it) 1943? Would I pick a fight with Mike Tyson if he entered a club in Torquay?

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] What I'm saying is it takes more than a grainy, out of focus video of four bearded Arabs sat in a cave, all looking like Bin Laden saying incoherently (the interpreter tells us) something like - "It was a good hit" - they could have been talking about the cricket!
And on this kind of evidence you're going to go to war, John, Paul, I'm sure you're not going to sign up to that.

And a disturbed British Arab who (watching this kind of crap on the television) caught up in the "euphoria" of the "holy war" tries to set his shoes (with some gun- powder in the heels) on fire on a cross Atlantic flight (but the matches are damp and he can't get them to light), is now serving 15 years in an American prison for his stupidity. And no, I wouldn't have wanted to have been on that flight either.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] My father was a very wise man, and I couldn't really see it until he was in his seventies and I was in my forties. (As someone said to me once - "You're a wanker, pity your father wasn't"). Anyway dad was a simple man of the earth, a building labourer by "trade", he served as a soldier in the artillery in the second world war (from 1940 to 1945) on the bofers guns defending the British coast. He said: "They (the government) can't find a few thousand pounds to build a hospital or a school, but if war broke out tomorrow they'd find b-i-l-l-i-o-n-s and b-i-l-l-i-o-n--s of pounds....." and that could be the key to the situation a university professor who appeared on the ITN TV Breakfast Show just before the Afghan war broke out said: "We in the West have got too much money, we've got to get rid of it". "In the future there'll be lots of wars just like in the book "1984", they'll be telling us: this month we're at war with Afghanistan; this month we're at war with Iran" He was never invited back on the tele again, but maybe he had a point, if the West and America in particular is top-heavy with money (and I don't understand finance but maybe that's dangerous, and they certainly won't give it to us because we'd all stop work) what better way of getting rid of it than dropping it on an Afghan hillside, bombing large bits of rubble into smaller bits of rubble. With bombs costing $1/2 million dollars a time.

Dad also said: "Governments know just when a war is going to start and just when that war is going to finish."

So the CIA and Mossad engineered the Twin Towers so they'd have an excuse to inaugurate the Afghan war and take the populous along with them. Would it now be taking things into the realms of paranoia to say it was because the Taliban had banned Opium growing in the country, and the US wanted to free up that market again and all the trade and crime (keeping the police in a job) that goes with it. Now, since the Afghan war Opium poppy growing has more than trebled and export to the West is flowing again. But that last bit is pushing the envelope as they say...

Another thing Dad said was (and this is more important), he said that blonds tend to team up with brunets, and if you look at your married friends you'll see that this is usually the case, if you see a ginger or blond guy the chances are heel be with a girl with pitch black hair. It's a genetic thing. And if you follow it through it can lead to some interesting anomalies, for instance look at the two girls walking towards you in the park, almost all the time, one's fair and one's dark, and the fair one will marry a dark guy and the dark one will marry a fair guy. Therefore if the fair guy chasses after fair girls he'll get nowhere.
But I digress....
And I'm tired now so I'll continue this another time, unless I'm unsubscribed ....

Best
Al

written earlier:

Paul wrote:
Any of you folks who don't delete my posts out of hand know that I have been begging for some INFORMED support of the peace movement to no avail.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any signs that the "peace" movement has any depth or philosophy to it.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]Nonsense Paul, from Christ to Ghandi, the pre-Israel Jews to the Quakers, name me a soldier who's ever done anything creative other than killing and carrying out the orders of a superior? Like John Lennon said: "Elvis was great until he went into the Army and from then on it was a living death." You only think violence (War) works because it's spectacular and shocks your system. In England about fifteen years ago two children abducted a younger child and killed the child. They passed many adults on the way and told those adults that the (crying) younger child was their brother. The adults later regretted believing the children (as you would) and not intervening. That act of violence provoked a nations soul-searching, changes in the law, tens of thousands of newspaper articles, discussions, re-constructions and T.V. documentaries. Yet if one of those adults had thought twice, stepped forward and investigated the youngsters, nothing would have ever been heard of the incident. No Paul, the personal can be amplified to the national - peace is always greater than war!

Paul continues:
A large mind knows that peace cannot exist without it's opposite.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] I know several 'wise' people who believe this i.e. to have peace you need war. I think it's even built into some religions. All I know is (on a personal level) there are violent families and peaceful families and in my experience the peaceful families are usually happier, saner, and get on better than the violent families. Can this be broadened to the national level?

"I am world leader pretend" - Michael Stipe/REM
_______________________________________________

Don't know if anything in that helps to this debate.

Al

See this is open for comments once again.

I stated I doubt the firemen entered the floors where the aircraft struck, was because the only access they would have had, would have been through the stairways and it is very unlikey they would have wished to open the stairway fire doors to those floors and allow caustic smoke to enter the stairways.

KEM, if you internet connection speed is decent, you may want to download a copy of the NIST Report (a PDF version of the "official NIST report" is available here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I searched the document for "magnesium" and found zero entries. I did the same for the 9/11 Commission Report, found at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf , and again turned up nothing in a search for "magnesium."

Given that a magnesium fire would aid the government considerably in arriving at "collapse initiation" (though do little to solve the violations of conservation laws, which you've never addressed...), it seems very strange that they wouldn't mention it, don't you think?

- the newly reformed oculus (drool....)

HAY MAGICCCCC. Yipeee, this thread just popped back up out of the archives. Ya think maybe the site monitor can bring Elvis back???

I understand building "number seven" was constructed in the same manner as th eTwin Towers.

IF,IF, (as I tend to believe), the towers fell due to excessive heat of the main towers steel beams, and so did building seven, why the long difference in time to collapse? ___ NO "magnesium fires" in building seven's tower area to warp and bend steel beams from the heat of the fires it experienced. There would have been magnesium fires from the vehicles parked in the parking garages of all of the buildings. That probably would not have brought the buildings down however. At least not straight down.

I did err on the type of aircraft fuel, it was not mixed with gasoline, and military JP-4 is a mix of 50-50, not 25-75. That is not really relevant to the buildng's fall or magnesium fires however, the aircraft fuel did catch on fire. That type of error can detract from ones credability, if any wish to do so. ___ Likke typeing erors can.

Namaste,

FYI, my Mechanical Engineers Handbook (McGraw-Hill 1958) gives typical strength of steel (yield stress) not of 30 ksi, but 30,000 ksi (30 milion psi).

A typical 30 ksi material is polyethylene.

Yeah I've had a lot of great times with the gals ~NAM~, but Ev stayed with me cause she says I'm good in bed. I'll take their word for that. (Their word??) ___Uhh,__ yes.

Hi there ~SDEMETRI~, well by golly I apologize to you also for rude remarks. Let's all be very thankful we aren't all blogging on the same two lane road while driving our vehicles. You know what I have noticed about Americans and their behavour over the years? Years ago, if I shot a free throw at a basketball game, at home or away, the entire croud didn't make a sound. We don't have that decency, courtesy and respect for others anymore, at least not in public.

On the magnesium fires??? It was ~Pecenickk~ who wrote about the aircraft carrier fire and he was correct, that's what happend to the one McCain was on where aircraft caught fire, the steel deck was melting and not from fuel or explosives. The original fuel fires would easily set any magnesium that was originally in the fuel fire for just a few minutes or so. The firemen didn't mention magnesium fires?? I seriously doubt any firemen got into the floors where the aircraft was burning, they may have gotten close enough to some to use hoses, but they would not have been able to see what was burning and the heat of magnesium fires would most certainly have been to hot for them to enter those floors. Now that is my opinon there, I've seen firemen back off of very hot fires. With an aircraft crashes, they use foam and walk right towards the fire, smothering it___ along with remote fire nozzels on the trucks and before the magnesium gets going good. Even if it does, they can put it out with foam. That was not the case at the Twin Towers.

When an aircraf burns and fireman or turcks aren't available, the aricraft keeps burning for several hours after all of the a/c fuel has burned off, which may take up to an hour or more depending upon the a/c fuel load. As I stated previously, an AC-130A Spectre gunship burned all night and day, until the last speck of magnesium had burned off and long after the fuel and ammo had cooked off.

Some large a/c wing and wing root spars and landing gear components are the size of skyscraper main beams, and even much, much thicker. Those were very large aircraft burning in those towers, ("many tons") of magnesium. I'm also sure there would have been fuel fires in many floors below the area of where the A/c struck and very likely firemen were fighting those fuel fires, but with water it would have been a losing firefight. ___ As indeed it was.

The buildings central cores were actully weak and light "when compared" to "conventional structural designs" and the towers were very unconventional. The floors were 4 inch concrete, reinforced with heavy wire mesh. The floors were supported by steel beams, "attached to the central core". So set a four inch square, foot long box on a table and "imagine", radiating out from it at two inch intravels are steel beams sticking out in all four directions. Then imagine concrete floors set upon those beams. Okay?

Now imagine a huge aircraft slices into the center of the upper portion of the building and the A/c fuselage slams, while now afire, into the central core. Ka-Booom. Here we have tons of fuel and fire, as there is a center a/c fuel tank, not just fuel in the wing tanks. Here you have huge piles of magnesium stacked up against the central core of the tower ___ on fire, and burnig at temps of 4,000 degrees F for an hour. ___ And that's where the concrete floors steel support beams are attached. ___ Take it from there, there cl dhave been burning magnesiumparts layg on top of elevators in the evelvator shafts, etc. A real disaster for firemen.

Damn,

I guess denial ain't running here no more

Jim Glover -- What I recall reading ( undocumented ) was that building requirements were use of 30 ksi steel (max), so the building was built to higher than normal building standards, which my "twisted" logic suggests that this means it was more resistant to disastrous collapse.

Regardless of either of our opinions ( or favorite evidence ), there is no -- nor has there ever -- been a completely consistent and rigorous analysis of ALL of the evidence.

For either to jump (up and down) saying that the buildings stayed (UP or DOWN) after the airplane collisions, is actually kind of silly -- if viewed from far enough away.

If you are satisfied in the state of current understanding, and that works out for you, be happy and enjoy your world as it is.

If you choose to pound through into my world, than please accept that I have sizably different experience, knowledge, and expectations -- that almost certainly would be quite different than your own.

Of the two statements directly above, we can both be 100% right and still be inconsistent with ALL of the evidence, as much of it has yet to come to light.

HUBRIS is a tributary to the river D'NILE -- and both of us are often going to get "WET"

Namaste

KEM -- Your "always" being in trouble over beautiful women in your life HARDLY surprises me, and I think that there is a subtle part of you that really knows how much those Ladies 'love the bad boys'.

We'll have to someday ask your wife how she can co-create (so well) with such a sometime "bad" boy -- perhaps she has an inner "nasty" girlness to match ( but of course, NOT too much ) ?

I have been honored at Bradley University, on several occasions, during my formal studies into the art of forensics (not the same as medical), so I have lovely memories as well -- but I've not the track record of dalliances'ing that you exhibit -- guess that I'm too monkish to dance that dance (much).

Nice to see your abundant spirit alive and thriving again, as none of us appear well when stucked'ness rules.

"I am a hole in a flute that the Christ's breath moves through, listen to this music."
Hafiz (c. 1400 AD)Namaste

In fact the only thing the truthers here proved is that David Rovics is right!

namaste you proved my point and then some.

My point was that structural steel under normal stress will begin to fail at 1000 degrees.
All the specs you found said nothing about the steel being used was any stronger against fire and heat.
(that has to do with insulation and the towers were very weak on that critical safety feature from fire)

Also you said that the steel beams in the towers was 3 times stronger but your specs show that very many grades of steel was used, from the weak to strong.
So I am still waiting for one piece of evidence that is proof of demolition.

peacenikk said "Jim Glover does it with his 3X melting point theory." No this was namaste who brought up 3x stronger than normal steel in the towers but his specs prove him wrong.

That is one of my main points but I don't boil everything down to that like you falsely accuse... you accuse us falsely and your theory does not hold water because you haven't yet offered one piece of evidence about demolition of the towers that will hold up in court.

You called me a fool because I point out things that your cult of ignorance won't even try to disprove. You can't because it is a fact that even bridge engineers know to be true.

I said as a welder I would cut beams at an angle for safety and I would cut a tree at an angle for safety too because you know which way it is going to fall and you don't want to gamble and take your own life or other worker's lives ...but you don't seem to care about things like that. The site i linked for you proved that the cleanup workers were doing just that ...It is another lie exposed long ago but your cult doesn't give a damn about truth and we know about all of your lies now and you fools haven't yet come up with any proof about the facts presented that debunks all your false claims except you attack the real good engineers as government agents or stooges or attack us in the same matter so I must point out that it is you who is the fool.

Still waiting for some proof, but I should know better... Fools never have any.

bystander -- Thank you very much for your words, I had to abandon FIREFOX a couple of days ago in favor of SAFARI, but my WB ntwrk connect is not any issue.

I will attempt to use less words, so that more will be able to read

KEM, nor are my thoughts on this as RIGID you as portray them. As a matter of fact, your magnesium theory, if it had appeared in any of the official reports, would make for a difficult argument, not impossible, but difficult one to address. Magnesium DOES burn very hot. I don't know how aircraft wreckage could be ignited so to release that energy, but I'll take your aircraft carrier story and burning through the deck at its face value. Sounds plausible.

But there is no-one that I know of that has advanced a similar theory. And given all of the eyewitness evidence... firefighters in the buildings, their experiences on that day with explosions going off around them, their seeing the fires up close and reporting what it would take to fight them, the knowledge the chiefs, it is plausibly assumed, had with chemical fires, which I think magnesium would qualify as, and yet not one indication any of them thought that might be involved...many other comments you have made absolutely convinced controlled demolition was NOT involved... I have to disagree with your assessment. I am not making a black and white argument in what I say... I am resting very solidly on what I know to be established FACT, or at least as established as more than a hundred eyewitnesses talk about, as what the science documented in five "official" studies, as well as independent researchers, have presented.

The science involved in free fall collapses, the thermodynamics of melting large quantities of metal, in analytics of fire investigations, in spectrography is not so foreign to me that I can't, like a jurer listening to expert witnesses discuss technical evidence, make a reasonable judgement about what I am hearing. If I were in a jury room asked to cast a vote to convict or acquit, I would convict. I have yet to see anything that dissuades me from the very plausible explanation that the World Trade Center towers were brought down with some combination of explosives and cutting charges. It is beyond a reasonable doubt, at least with me. Contradictory theories that a priori ignore observed evidence might sound entirely plausible, but glaring contradictions don't a good theory make.

The fascists had opportunity, motive, and means to pull off an inside job. How EXACTLY it was done, I don't know, but it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt for me, through a combination of irrefutable scientific data and very strong circumstantial evidence I vote to convict.

You say you want a fair investigation. We are in COMPLETE agreement on this point.

Fisk's article is good, while on points I certainly disagree, because he points out obvious inconsistencies with the official line. He pleads the "incompetence defense," saying Bush et al are too incompetent, but he is wrong on that. They are imminently competent, as I stated to Opinionated somewhere above. I have a great deal of respect for his work, and I honestly think if he took the time to investigate the obvious inconsistencies further, taking away from his other work, he would come to a similar conclusion as mine. I have made it a point to look into this as deeply as time permits me. I vote to convict the admin for complicity in the attacks of 9/11. I would welcome an honest, independent investigation into what really took place. In my mind, the evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming and a good place to start.

I offended you dismissing your magnesium theory, and resorted to the unkind tactic of appealing to ridicule to address it. Please accept my apology for the offense. I have not changed my opinion, but I was unkind.

I have to take issue with the statement that George W. Bush is incompetent and everything that he has done has gone terribly wrong. On the contrary, simultaneously, he has been the worst president the US has every had but he has accomplished everything that he has wanted in spades. Namely:

(1) USA PATRIOT act:
The greatest successful attack on the Constitution in its history. Made possible by 9/11 and the still unsolved anthrax attacks. (Hey debunkers - where did that US Military grade anthrax come from anyway? Surely not OUR government.)

(2) The Iraq war:
Halliburton and its MIC friends have been made rich beyond their wildest dreams. And Iraq has been successfully balkanized all according to plan. (My own circumstantial conspiracy theory: no one credible ever took responsibility for the original mosque attack. Could it have been a CIA action to seed internal division in the country? Intentional or not, that was the result which strangely mirrors GWB's goal of dividing the country into separate sections which are easier to control.)

(3) Katrina:
Successfully drowned the government in a bathtub (stated goal of the neo-conservatives) and successfully performed the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans. (Recently, my home town received FEMA money to repair a flood damaged road that was only damaged because a developer happened to build a house on a filled in streambed. FEMA would much rather bail out crooked developers than the people of New Orleans.)

(4) Oil company profits:
Who is paying the price here?

(5) Bringing on Armageddon:
We are well on the way to having NY under water and allowing KEM's methane burps to kill us all. Right on schedule.

(6) Endangered Species Act, Clear Air Act, NASA science gags, Monsanto's GMOs, Medicare part D gift to big pharma, Supreme Court ...
Could he ask for more? If he does, he will get it. How can you call him incompetent?

(7) Media:
Who would have thought even eight years ago that Pravda would be better than our own media today?

(8) Iran:
Do you really doubt that Iran will not be bombed before GWB leaves office?

George W. Bush has achieved or will achieve all of the goals that he set out for. Come October, the latest terrorist attack will ensure George W. Bush as president for life. But we will all enjoy martial law because we are smart and GWB is stupid.

By the way, this thread is essentially now unreachable by anyone with dial up. The text alone is over a megabyte and the images add another five and a half megabytes. And my browser is choking...

Apparently I did something naughty, and my former avatar (oculus) has been sent to a re-education camp. I promise this avatar will be much better behaved...

(drool...)

Okay NAM, thank you. I really felt down with the thought you'd be angry with me. I very much respect and like you also.

Well, I see we are now in the dark and hidden dungeons of CD, but suspect it still may reach a 1,000.

Hey, when I was a cadet at Roosevelt Military Academy, Aledo, Ill. Peoria was one of our big foes in sports. Colonel Glen P. Millikan had me in his office a few times, and I was madly in love with his beautiful wife, who was the teacher for the fifth through eigth graders. I think she liked me a lot too. I was always in trouble, so I got to use the library often, instead of going to town and the movies with my buddies.

I know that you weren't chiding me -- KEM -- Actually you somehow are projecting this negativity, as I still regards you as a "rock" of logic and experience, and your example is PROTOTYPICAL of the honest resistance to these ideas,from the masses of Americans (yet enlightened). To me, you are much as the often stated "that doesn't play in Peoria" (and I've been there) reluctance to accept things to far outside of "normal" existence (actually another town in Illinois, been there too).

What is unique about today's world is sadly quite a LOT, so getting the PEORIANS up to speed is not only a nice idea, it is incumbent upon those leading, to consider their values and mindset as fundamentally "ALL is OK".

And from there, we must gradually keep them feeling "OK", and bring them along into the new age -- as you YOURSELF have wondrously accomplished. You continue to be humble and self-effacing even with your verbal precision, experience, and strength of character -- it is not too much for you as to require acting bigger than your two shoes could hold. We all share various limitations and blind spots, but that doesn't mark anything else but our HUMAN qualities, Remember that the original biblical definition of SINING (in latin, or greek) was simply to "MISS THE MARK" as when shooting an arrow at a target.

At worse KEM, I would say that your aim is good, but the vagaries of life (wind, barometric Pressure, past experiences, …) have caused your last few arrows to hit "off target". THe good news is, that there are abundant arrows retaining.

WE would expect much higher resistance and upheaval from lessor open minds, so NO -- I have nothing against your ideas of beliefs, and not a smidgen of anger or angst toward you.

I humbly attempted to turn your own beliefs into the quandary of looking at themselves in a fuller more brilliant light of inclusive knowledge. Whenever the time may be, please do consider re-reading these posts.

TODAY, I am very joyous and smiling about how wonderful life is. AND IT IS SO

Namaste

Those who believe the buildings were not imploded are totally wrong, those who believe they were are totaly right, they have absolute proof of that FACT. According to ~SDEMETRI~.

The implosion for sure guys also want another investigation? __Why?__ If they already have the "absolute proof" that the buildings were imploded with explosives. ___I want a fair investigation, because I want to have it done properly, without Henry Kissinger or anyone like him chairing the gang, who didn't insure that this type of discussion was necessary. Either they were imploded or they were not.

I find it rather strange that ~SDEMETRI~ approves of the Fisk comments, but Fisk thinks exactly the same as I do on the issue, ___ but ~Sdemeti~ says I'm stupid. He totally discounts the fact, that tons of magnesium were indeed burning in the buildings and in the basements and that could easlily have melted steel beams. But instead of thinking about that fact, he jumps on the errors I did make by writing thousands of tons of magnesium, instead of thoudands of pounds, or just tons. The man issue is, magnesium fires were never addressed by the 9-11 commission and it should have been. One shoud read all of my prior posts on that subject and consider it MAY be importnant.

Well said sdemetri -- and as long as all of "my" electrons and "my" electrons orbitals have anything to say about it, IT [911x2] WILL _ N O T _ HAPPEN

I suggest that EVERYONE (non-anti-pros inclusively) "talk" to "their" electrons to insure that no fascist activity is successful this year, or next, …

You actually do have it within you, just like Dorothy always had …

Namaste

I wasn't chiding YOU Namaste, I didn't ever see where YOU "insisted" the buildings were brought down with explosives. You sure aren't writing a I've known you. It wasn't ten days ago, that you were telling me what a great guy I was, and how much you appreciated my being here at this site. All I see from your posts now, are total anger at any who offer a different opinion than yours on this issue.

I'm confused about your last post. I don't believe aircraft travelling less than three times the speed of sound or higher, distengrate when they hit another object. I also don't think the twin towers did when they collapsed either. But I may be wrong about the buildings. Did they?

Sorry to have upset you. It wasn't intenional, I think you didn't read my post very carefully. You are realy angry and it shows.

Yes, thanks oculus for posting Fisk's article. It was actually one that help solidify my questions and search for the truth about 9/11. An earlier article on Informationclearinghouse which mentioned Patriots Question 911, was also very impressive. Neither article buys into "conspiracy theory" but as namaste aptly posted above, even the non-truthers subscribe to a conspiracy theory, just one that doesn't take all the evidence into account.

That term, conspiracy theory, is burdened with much baggage. In its honest form it correctly describes the work of prosecutors and investigators sorting out the workings of a conspiracy: two or more plotting to commit some act. In its derogatory form, what many non-truthers resort to attempting to discredit those wanting honest answers to honest questions about 9/11, it is used to describe everything from Elvis sightings (where no two conspired to do anything, and therefore technically not a conspiracy) to reptilian leaders from outer space covertly taking over the planet. (Though sometimes I wonder about the reptilian intent of Cheney and his sidekick Bush.)

So whether the naysayers that can't get their minds around the proofs or the circumstantial evidence presented here can agree or not, they are in fact conspiracy theorists themselves. They happen to subscribe to the self-contradictory theories of the official line about 9/11, and repeatedly fail to clarify those self-contradictions. It is a burden of proof thing. True, the truth movement has a burden of proof to show evidence of controlled demolition. And we have, using the data and evidence documented in the official inquiries, and independent investigation. The non-truthers, however, take NO responsibility for the internal contradictions in their own theories, dismissing the contradictions as if they don't exist. As the truth movement grows, and it certainly is, with large majorities saying the 9/11 Commission was incomplete and shoddily run, more calling for a new investigation, including members of Congress, it is hopeful we might not have to wait years and years for the truth to make its way into the public consciousness. Folks had to wait some 30 years for Martin Luther King's government-backed murder to come to light. Hopefully, the fascists don't commit murder again before we are able to expose this conspiracy for what it is: the concerted push for empire.

If we make it to November, and an election, without another terrorist attack blamed on external agents but unproven, we have some hope. Alot can happen before then though.

>"My" electron loves "your" electron orbital

the circle of LIFE is far wider than we KNOW

Now that I've been classified as a troll, and one who supports the Bush cartel and believes torturing people is alright, supports the war in Iraq etc, let me advise any new-comers to Common Dreams who may wish to join the blogger gang here of a few things.

To be a true, card holding progressive here, it is better to support Obama FULLY, it's not mandantory, but it's better, at least until he does something not fit for a progressive's taste. Support the use of mind altering drugs or don't ever say you don't. Hate Hillary, but never admit you hate her by using the word "hate". Despise Al Gore for allowing the Supreme Court to enforce it's final ruling. Love Ralph Nader. Never write the word fuck, and use all four letters, this is acceptable___ F##k.

If any should attack you and initiate a shit fight, because you are obtuse, or full of pride, because you don't FULLY agree with all of their opinions, be nice to them, for it isn't polite or "gentmanly" to toss any shit back. Don't blog too many strong opinions you may have on serious subjects, such as global warming, or the methane gas threat, or use of DU ammo, more than ten times on different threads in a thirty day period, or you will be classified as a Chicken Little and be asked to shut the F##k up.

Finally, if a thread about 9-11 comes on, ignore it totally, don't argue with anyone who knows for a FACT that the Twin Towers and building Severn were secretly wired with explosive charges, thermite was the explosive used BTW, and then imploded after the aircraft struck the buildings. The "thermite" charges were not set off right away so that most of the people could get out of the buildings, three thousand dead was acceptable collateral damage so Bush woud have a decent excuse to start his war with Iraq. Of course he didn't need an excuse that dramatic, but for god's sake don't say that, or you will end up being a fucking troll and you and your posts will be shunned. That's just my humble advice. So have fun here, for it's often lots of fun. ___Oh, and be sure to piss off at least one person a month.

In Quantum Mechanics, there is the Schrödinger Wave Equation to describe the behavior of quite eratic electrons and other sub-atomic mysteries.

This highly accurate and repeated verified theory, is actually all about the probability of events occurring

On the macro-world level, these equations are too ponderous to have any use -- but they do illustrate some bizarre aspects of "reality". For example, where you aware that at this very moment, an electron on the tip of your right index finger is likely sharing an orbit with some magnesium on the surface of the moon?

Or even more bizarre, that all the people reading this thread (whenever) are actual entangled together at the sub-atomic level -- because ALL of matter is constantly being SUBLET by quantum phenomenon, that just do not like to be resident where you might think they BELONG

Why, this? Because all of reality is a superposition (actual physics wave Eqn definition) of various likely states of existence.

What you may consider to be solid, is only apparently so, and as for 911 -- I choose to view the probabilities along a sliding scale of most likely to most improbableso disintegration is pegged as almost least likely,
while controlled demolition is floating around very likely.

My accepting that I don't know how they did it, doesn't change the likelihood of occurrence

Namaste

My opinions are hardly as RIDGID as you imply, and regardless of your own knowledge of physics and building construction -- I am a professional who does know his business.

So let's turn that around, what so clearly proves to you the impossibility of demolition ?

Could it just be that it is improbable, and that you yourself might benefit from becoming a bit looser?

I seem to recall that you argued strongly against airplanes disintegrating on impact, so why perchance would a steel frame building
(not used in airplanes) have any "interest" or proclivities in
D I S I N T E G R A T I O N

Considering the relative masses, sizes, structural integrity, and history of crashes … etc Hmmmm ?

Namaste

Thanks for posting that article ~OCULUS~. I agree totally with Fisk there, he said it far better than I can.

Excellent point ~Namaste~. That reminds me of the fact, that all of those who insist the buildings were brought down with explosives and term ANYONE who believe otherwise, (misfits, ignorant uniformed denyers, or even neo-con trolls and are pitiful scum who should not blog on tis site), __ are using__ CIRMCUMSTANTIAL__ evidence to support their rigid opinions.

Oh, the meaning of __ i n s u b s t a n t i a l __ (w/o substance) and

__ C I R C U M S T A N T I A L __

1. of pertaining to, or derived from circumstances: a circumstantial result.
2. of the nature of a circumstance; secondary; incidental: of circumstantial importance.
3. dealing with or giving circumstances; detailed; particular: a circumstantial report of a business conference.
4. pertaining to conditions of material welfare.

I think you perhaps has confused the two meanings, as circumstantial ALSO means ENCIRCLING the cause by casting a fined meshed net far enough OUT to CAPTURE relevant evidence of GUILT.

What a drag (net) for you

Namaste

Hey JAKE -- in regards to "specific" evidence (for your ALL to convenient disMISSsals)

I suppose in your thorough knowledge of reality, it has never occurred to you that there are hundreds of convicted murders, those only evidence was C I R C U M S T A N T I A L

I guess you could always blame that on the jury's for not have YOUR standards of TRUTH and justice, and will assert that those convicted criminal were BUNKed (and you need to deBUNK them).

How sad, perhaps
"she doth protest too much me thinks"

Namaste

Have some popcorn KEM, that's all I can afford.

Well Jake you are correct about at least three things. ONE, the buildings were not imploded. TWO. one shoud never ask one tp prove a negative. THREE. I'm in trouble now.

Despite all the heated argument on this thread, I think most of us can agree that the official 9/11 "investigations" were seriously flawed, and that the event is significant enough to warrant a new, in-depth and honest investigation. I hope that CommonDreams will bring more enlightened articles and columns on this topic, as it is the cornerstone for dramatic shifts in foreign and domestic policies. I think I'll start the process for them.

Journalist Robert Fisk's columns have appeared frequently on this site, although I don't think the following one ever did. So here it is. While Fisk is no "truther" (yet), it shows that he is beginning the journey to an awakening. Those of you defending the government's account may find some of his questions regarding 9/11 grounds for further investigation.

EVEN I QUESTION THE 'TRUTH' ABOUT 9/11
by Robert Fisk
The Independent, Saturday, 25 August 2007

Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.

LOL! Raymond McGovern retired from the CIA decades ago and is now an "activist". He would have no specific inside knowledge about any 911 inside job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern#9.2F11_attacks

"Who is the first troll to bebunk this ?"

It's impossible to debunk because there is no meaning ful details as to why the *alleged* CIA official thinks there is a cover up. You have to do better than that general, detail sparse statement.

9/11 was an inside job according to CIA official
A 27-year CIA veteran , who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to R.Reagan and H.W. Bush , their vice-presidents, secretary of states, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials ( Raymond McGovern) said : "I think at simplest terms, there is a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke, and is open to the possibililty that 9/11 was an inside job"
Who is the first troll to bebunk this ?

"The only thing left to ascertain on this thread is whether CD will cut the cord at 911 posts."

I doubt it, it's free "content" for CD.

That's "poured" above, and "molten steel"

"Proving a Negative takes a form like this:

"There are Martians among us".

"Nonsense, you have provided no evidence of such a claim"

"But you can't prove they aren't here".

Whether the recent exchange about building collapse times correctly fits with the above may be interesting to some, but it ignores the *fact* that the collapse times were given with no evidence supplied. Further, when I asked for such evidence that "all fell in less than 10 seconds " the challenge was declined, and instead I was challenged to prove the assertion was not true.

Anyway you slice it, it wasn't a very good piece of work by the troothers involved and very typical.

"9/11 was an inside job according to Italian president"

LOL! It has come to this for you. You are way behind, there is plenty of discussion already as to what that is supposed to prove.

More on freeefall:

9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / f r e e f a l l . h t m l

"I suppose FigNewton did not even take a course in elementary formal logic. "

Whatever, you still made specific claims as to fall times without offering evidence.

"What is the defenition of liquid in the context of metal? Do you have an exact demarcation in mind between solid and liquid?"

Not handy but I am sure you can find one. I beleive "molten" steell is hot enough so that it streams, puddles, drips, etc. The image that comes to mind is such as at a foundry where molten steel is *puore* in liquid form into a mold.

""Here's the reality: WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell in less than 10 seconds respectively. "

Without providing evidence. Reponds instead:

"Prove that it was not. "

Thus refusing to supply the evidence.

You are not able to produce a recording of any of the three collapse events that records *both* the start and stop points in any meaningful way. The stop point is a particular problem because the debris and often foreground objects obscures the view. Deceptive videos superimpose a stop watch read out feature whose start and stop are controlled simply by the producers of the video.

In light of the above, the best *anyone* can do is supply a *range* of time that each event occured, not a specific time. And more to the point about freefall speed, The videos of the collapse of the twin towers *clearly* show debris from the towers outrunning the collapse of the remaing portion of the tower.

9/11 was an inside job according to Italian president
Former Italian president, Francesco CASSIGA, a CIA agent who conducted false flag operations called Operations Gladio in Italy and throughout Europe in the 60's to discredit communists, revealed in an interview on November 30th with Italy's wildly read Carriere Della Serra, that 9/11 terrorist attacks were by CIA and MOSSAD and that it was common knowledge among global intelligence community.
Quote : " All the intelligence sources of America and Europe know well that the disasterous attacks had been planned and realized from MOSSAD with the aid of Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the Western powers to take part in Iraq and Afghanistan wars".
Now who is the first troll to refute/debunk this confirmation issued by an authority on false flag operations?

ENOUGH ALREADY!

It must be sooo painful for all you guys to keep typing with those bloody stumps of fingers left.

Jeesh!

jakenewton April 12th, 2008 9:50 pm
"Prove that it was not."
Never ever EVER ask someone to prove a negative. Logical fallacy."

I suppose FigNewton did not even take a course in elementary formal logic. For if he did, he would not rehearse the idiotic claim that one cannot prove a negated proposition (yes, I am assuming that 'negative' means 'negated proposition') -- the sort of assertion one hears on radio shows, usually when some jackass from Wall Street pontificates on some economic or business issue. Anyone who has seriously studied mathematical logic knows that one can derive a negated proposition in an axiomatic system or natural deduction system of first order classical logic.

Fig, it's time to return to school and start your education.

I agree the 110 floors fell in about ten seconds. What does that prove?

My hope is that all of the above words

provide enough for JAKE to retire in the comfort he deserves

May he rust in peace

After a refreshing day in the big city with my wonderful daughter I return to this ongoing "what to call it?" Really not sure.

YIKES!!! People here maybe need to take a break and do some quiet breathing. It does clear the head, and may dispel some of the bad feelings generated here. Namaste I loved the post you did early today where you made another attempt at consensus building and dissispation of all the polorization. Too bad so few seemed to take it to heart.

Thanks Jake for almost answering my question left late last night about harm? I say almost because I am not certain you and I have similar ideas about what constitutes harm. But thanks for taking the time to reply. I would have been abit hurt if you had continued to ignore my direct attempt at dialogue since you have been so diligent in answering nearly every other post.

The only thing left to ascertain on this thread is whether CD will cut the cord at 911 posts. Must be getting close. For some of you this has been a marathon but I will admit I have learned allot of new information from the very diligent contributors who do their homework.Sometimes I wonder if it will get a full airing in my lifetime. Maybe in my children's. Let us hope.

In any case, I suppose most of our differences cannot be resolved in such a forum. Too bad because I suspect many of us would find we actually have a great deal that connects us. Oh well....perhaps another day.

practable? Ooops.

I believe Cheney, Bush , Bush SR, Kissinger, Rove, Rumsfeld and others all may have been aware of 19 or 20 terrorists planned to hijack aircraft and ram the buildings. I don't believe the buildings were brought down with explosives.

It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible to set up undetected at some point in itme, it is not practical, it is not feasable, it is not intelligent or sensible to have such an elaborate unnecessary scheme and then also add in the two hijacked aircraft. It just makes no sense. To have men ram the buildings with aircraft would be practable and obviously it was.

jakenewton April 12th, 2008 9:50 pm
"Prove that it was not."
Never ever EVER ask someone to prove a negative. Logical fallacy."

I did not ask you to prove a negative, so the above is yet another of your lunatic ravings. You cannot show that the collapse times of the WTC's was substantially different than what is known to be the case - 10 seconds or less - because they were eye-witnessed by millions and recorded for posterity. That is the proof.

Seriously, it is a waste of time to discuss anything further with you.

BushCo did everything it could to prevent an official investigation of the events of 9/11, and when the investigation was finally forced on them, they chose Henry Kissinger to chair it! And given those facts, there are STILL people walking around who don't think it was an inside job! Of course it was an inside job. It had national Intelligence black ops written all over it! THE MAJOR CORPORATE MEDIA completely ignores the 9/11 Truthseekers or RIDICULES them. What MORE evidence do you need than MAJOR CORPORATE MEDIA being so unilaterally in accordance on the issue? What exactly IS major corporate media anyway? IT'S A CORPORATE PROPAGANDA VEHICLE TO DECEIVE THE MASSES. If it's on TV it's probably a lie. Nuff said.

Jake Newton What is the defenition of liquid in the context of metal? Do you have an exact demarcation in mind between solid and liquid?

"Prove that it was not."

Never ever EVER ask someone to prove a negative. Logical fallacy.

I just realized thermite found on some steel beams seems to have caused a great deal of speculation that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center buildings. LOL

There are several reasons evidence of thermite was found there. Ever hear of thermite welds? Steel beams, auto and turck construction use thermite welding. Also visual evidence of a piece of burned metal whether from thermte or magnesium would appear the same.

Thermite burns at 4,500 degrees F and magnesium at 4,000. Big deal, because some evidence of thermite was discovered, the buildings were imploded.____ Sorry, that's not the normal type of explosive used to implode a high rise. A thermite rope could be used to cut a steel beam, but to bring a high rise straight down would require exact timed explosives of hundreds of beams and thermite explosions are not that exact. The implosion theory is far out of sensible imagination.

I see you assume also ~Peacenikk~, you do it often, assume, assume. "I ASS-U-ME, Kem would THINK magnesium brought down building seven". You "assume" wrong BIGGG mouth. I wrote exactly what I thought and know about building Seven. Shove your 'assumptions' up your soplistic ass and stop insulting me and I'll return the respect.

I don't understand why ~Jake~ doesn't believe there was molten metal at the site, I saw it on TV one day and believe the comments ~Eveningland~ posted and the sources quoted. I don't for a second believe the molten metlal was becue thermite explosives were used to bring down the towers or building seven. ~Jake~ has adequately and professionally explained that to my satisfaction. He has the qualifications.

Finally, what earthly difference does it make as to how fast the towers fell? If it had been a massive earthquake that caused the them to fall, they would have fallen at the SAME speed as they did fall. However long it took the top floor to reach the street, would be the same, if they fell straight down, or just slighly longer, had they toppeled over sideways. Anyway, what's the argument about how fast they fell?

You aren't going to apologize for writing the rude, shitty remarks you made about me on your April 12th 5.08 post PEACENICKK and give me the chace to apologize to you?

When 'themite' explodes, ___ it explodes, the flash of the explosion is over in a second or less. It does not burn for several hours or days. A thermte grenade is desgned to burn for several second to melt a cannon's gun barrel or a vehicle's engine. They don't burn for hours or days. ___ MAGNESIUM ALLOYS DO.___ at well over 3,000 degrees.

~EVENINGLAND~ Thank you for posting that informative post. What it states, supports my insistnace of magnesium fires. There is nothing else I am aware of at the site, that would have burned for days and melted steel beams and caused metals to flow like lava. If we ignore any aircraft parts ever entered the basement, but I don't see where they could not have, there still would have been tons of magnesium in the garages, where indeed thousands of vehicles burned, along with thousands of gallons of gsoline and at least four rubber tires for most vehicles, less motorcycles of course. I add that last comment, so some detracting smart alec, don't tell me all vehicles don't have four wheels.

The fires hot enough to melt steel would have been from "magnesium". There is a good deal of it in vehicles, inner door supports, engine accessory parts, hood and trunk inner supports and ___mostly___ mag wheels, thousands of those, if ony 10% had them. The fires from those vehicles, several levels of vehicles, under all three buildings, magnesium, rubber tires and oil and gasoline mixed, would have created a blast furnace type of heat and water will not extinguish magnesium fires.

"Here's the reality: WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell in less than 10 seconds respectively. "
Prove it.

Prove that it was not. Try not to let the facts - or your insanity - get in the way.

"Homerun EveningLand!

Let's test Peacenikks aptitude: From all the stuff in EveningLand:s post, what is your *very best* indication that molten steel was present? Keep in mind your reply is in the public domain.

Homerun! LOL!!!

"Homerun EveningLand!"

Nothing, not one single thing in that post indicates molten steel verified by analysis.

EveningLand: "Molten" means "liquid". Please keep that in mind.

"On Molten Steel at the World Trade Center sites of Buildings 1, 2, and 7, see the following excerpts from a much longer post.
"

No one there collected samples for analysis. Seeing molten metal is not seeing molten steel. Dismissed.

"Here's the reality: WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell in less than 10 seconds respectively. "

Prove it.

Yep, I said "including the thousands of cars." Two thousand tons would be thousands of tons. I never said the aircraft had thousands of tons of magnesium, as at least two said I did in an attempt to discredit my posts.

Why do you claim the aircraft would be "COOL" when they reached the basement levels? I've watched a AC-130A burn for almost two days. We could not approach it because the ammo began cooking off, two fire trucks parked in front of it melted to nothng but axels just from the heat of the aircraft fire.

The first tower fell an hour after being stuck, the second one a hour and a half. Those aircraft parts would have been burning for 'at least' 12 hours. When the building fell, whose to say burning aircraft parts didn't enter the basement level? Then the vehicles burned, thousands of them, some trains burned down there, there was tons of magnesium. I don't care if the report didn't mention magnesium fires, that sure as hell don't mean they were't burning, They had to be burning, a high school student taking science class can reason that out. And once more burnig at temps near 4,000 degtrees.

Imagine if you can what that could do to steel beams and the steel mesh under-flooring of the concrete floors. That heavy steel mesh would also explain why so much concrete turned to dust. When the heavy four inch thick concrete floors fell and hit another concrete floor, the metal mesh could easily have acted like cheeze cutters in the then fractured concrete.

Homerun EveningLand!

To quote Jake from a previous post..."Baby Steps"

On Molten Steel at the World Trade Center sites of Buildings 1, 2, and 7, see the following excerpts from a much longer post.

The full text is available, along with the sources, and various photographs, charts, and video clips at:

www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

World Trade Center Hot Spots
jakeogh, 5 March 2008(created 30 January 2008) |
not tagging
no tags

Site instructions: how to link to a page, ect.

Some notes:
1. The images below represent surface temperatures, the "optical depth" is at the most a few millimeters. (source)
2. Thermal Data was Used to Direct Firefighting Efforts
3. The WTC debris pile fire was oxygen-poor.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. (source)

Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We're seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we're hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That's right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What's going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It's just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what's in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov)

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (audio)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (audio)

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (source) (hi-res_source)

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (cached_copy)

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux stated the molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,". He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source)

Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu)

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu)

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster," he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source)

"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (cached_copy)

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source)

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said. (source)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source)

...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (2) (3)

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source)

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source)

Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu)

Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov)

Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains." (source)

A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source)

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can't recognize what it is, that's what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source)

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source)

"In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire - which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December." (source_acs.org)

Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F. (source)

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." (source)

Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards. (source_OSHA.gov)

The "hot spots", where intensely burning debris generated temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, posed a significant danger to relief workers. NASA had an instrument that could provide information that would be useful to emergency responders. NASA's Airborne Visible infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) science instrument was capable of providing data that could be used to filter smoke and locate extreme hot spots. (source_erau.edu)

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials (source)

Firefighters and other responders contended with intense heat associated with the super-heated steel for weeks; some were coming back from shifts with the bottoms of their boots melted. (source_gwu.edu)

Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the Pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the Pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200 degrees, so hot that the steel work lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. I've never seen anything like this". (source)

"The fires are so hot in pockets on the Pile that some of the firefighters change boots 3-4 times a day. Smoke and flame come up from the Pit deep within the Pile when a piece of heavy equipment with a huge grappler pulls out a mass that allows a swish of oxygen inside". (source)

Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (source) (cached_copy)

Ground Zero at the World Trade Center was a search site like few others after a major disaster event. Multiple sources of hazards were everywhere. There were shards of steel piled on steel, a two-million-ton pile of debris, red hot steel beams still being pulled from the earth, crevasses, holes, unstable ground, still burning fires, possible asbestos exposure, and caustic fumes that may have contained mixtures of benzene, methane gas and other chemicals. (source_p1) (source)

"The first indication of "Ground Zero" is the smoke. It's still smoking. Many of the beams are still red hot as they are uncovered, and start new fires as the oxygen reaches them." -Congressman Pete Hoekstra (source)

The pile of debris after 30 days of removal operations was still gigantic, over three stories high, with structural steel projecting 7-10 stories into the air. The steam, dust, noise, steel and myriad activities were larger than anything I have ever seen. Temperatures in the pile were over 1,200 °F. Every time an area was opened, fire started in any buried combustible debris. Water trucks and fire engines were used continually. The high temperature debris and water created steam. (source_army.mil) (cached_copy)

"It was determined that 3 million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts between 9/11 and 9/21"... "In addition, there were 2 episodes of rain during the same 10 day period after the attack: on 9/14 and 9/20, totaling 0.9 million gallons of water per Bathtub area. Considering the neighboring area, one can take 1 million gallons from the rain. Therefore, a total of 4 million gallons of water percolated through the debris in the first 10 days and collected at the bottom of the Bathtub." (source_llnl.gov)

2000 gallons of Pyrocool FEF foaming agent were sprayed on the "pile" starting September 28th. (source)

"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake." (source)

"When I am not moving, I notice that the soles of my boots are melting from the heat inside the pile of debris." (source)

"As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another. Steel beams pulled from the debris at times are so hot they are cherry red. Benzene, propylene, styrene and other chemicals generated by the combustion of computers, office products and fuels drift through the air." (source)

Kem:

Here's what you wrote at 7:40PM yesterday.

"With the thousands of tons of magnesium alloys which burned for days, including the thousands of vehicles, whch also BTW, have a lot of magnesium and likely many also had MAG wheels, which were very popular in the 90s and early 2000. It would be a sure thing to have pools of still hot molten metal of every type in the basement areas. It would be reasonable to expect to see molten metal flowing from the areas where the aircraft struck the buildings, with those aircraft ablaze. Remmeber a 4,000 degree fire and there may have been DU aircraft counter tail weights. Hundreds of the fire and policmen now suffer from PTSD, or radiation sickness, or have already died."

I'm not saying that the planes did not ignite. (I'm typing slow so's you'll understand me.) Let me repeat. I'm not saying that the planes did not ignite. I'm saying that not even the official story point to this as a cause. I couldn't find anything that says the planes ignited and caused the failure. YES, when ignited, magnesium burns at 4000 degrees and can't be extinguished. Don't you remember I'm the guy who backed you up on that? MAGNESIUM BURNS HOT. Satisfied?

Now how the hell did things get so hot in the basement that there were pools of molten iron that might with sulphur and the combustion products of thermate? Really, I want to know. Because the ignited planes above the 70th floor of each tower would have cooled before reaching the basements. The fires at the level of the planes burned with black smoke.

My point in bringing up the lightbulb filament was to illustrate that temperature and heat content are independent. You can have a high temperature without the ability to melt structural steel columns. But you go ahead and fixate on your 4000 degrees. I did the same experiment in high school as Sdemetri, burning magnesium strips. I loved it. But a jet won't burn a 110 story building down nor weaken it enough to cause catastrophic collapse.

Also had the Al/Mg alloy of the plane gotten to the molten state, it would have cooled LONG before reaching the basement. Have you ever melted metal? Soon after taking away the heat source, it solidifies again. That is unless you're in a steel foundry where they heat it high enough to pour into molds where it's got to stay liquid for a while. If the Al/Mg alloy had gotten to the ignition state, it would have burned out before reaching the basement. The FACT is, (and yes I mean fact), I can't find anyone but you who subscribes to the magnesium fire theory. I find it marginally more plausible than Jake's steam and steel theory.

Thanks for your theory on Bldg 7. Clearly well reasoned. Except for the fact that WTC7 had it's whole facade ripped off by falling debris and much of it's structural members damaged, yet it remained standing. No there was no fire, but fire doesn't make high-rise steel frame buildings collapse unless they're owned by Larry Silverstein on 9/11/2001. It's never happend before or since. The fires in WTC7 were small and sporadic. You have no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 yet you call me the fool for wanting a new investigation.

Just so we're clear

-Magnesium burns hot, 4000 degrees F, (I've said it)

-Nobody but Kem believes burning Al/Mg alloy had anything to do with the collapse of the towers
Kem doesn't have an opinion on WTC7 but no doubt harbors a niggling suspicion that magnesium is to blame.

Oh and for the record, it is a FACT that thermite burns hotter than magnesium. It is also a fact that the residue found in the rubble of WTC 1, 2 and 7 showed traces of the products of combustion of thermite.

Don't play the hapless victim Kem.

jakenewton April 11th, 2008 12:35 am
"Really, I think jakenewton needs to call it a night and get some rest. I hope he doesn't forget his meds this time."

Translation: "I can't prove the time frame. And this makes me angry. Making a disparaging remark to Jake will make me feel better"

----

It doesn't make me "angry", jakenewton, but you can spin it any way you wish, (as usual). Your silly and childish rejection at all costs of simple, agreed-upon facts makes me laugh, actually.

Here's the reality: WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell in less than 10 seconds respectively. It was witnessed by millions on live TV as well as thousands/millions of real people in NY at the time it occurred. I suppose none of that is sufficient for your idiotic theories? Too bad that anyone has to state the obvious, but in the universe you inhabit, these things are perhaps not so obvious.

I'm sure we're all anxiously awaiting your tortured and convoluted, faux-scientific "explanation" of why that evidence is not acceptable.

Seek psychiatric help jakenewton, or admit that you're a paid shill. One or the other, or both, are clearly evident.

SiouxRose, it's the poster called frankscott at April 7, 9:00 pm. He's the one I was referring to as being in my own discussion group for years and ALWAYS jumping in with both feet with the subject of 9/11 truth came up, both feet on the throats of anyone wishing to discuss the matter in a factual sense.

Fuck you ~PEACENIKK~ Is what I'd say to you ___after what you just wrote that I'd probably say about torture, the war in Iraq, etc.

I've posted nealry 2,000 comments here at Common Dreams, asshole, not once have I ever supported the Bush regiem or what he has done. I am however not one who believes the twin towers were imploded.

You and others posts making fun of the ABSOLUTE FACT, that magnesium fires indeed would burn at temps near 4,000 degrees, and there were several TONS of magnesium burning in those buldings and in the basements of the towers and some in the building seven parking garage, and molten metal would have been found, are just showing your ignorance and sophistic manner of debating. ____ Your dirty liars.

And one more time, Fuck you asshole. You start that type of rude or vulgar comment, by saying Kem is such and such and he believes such and such, which can be easily proven as totally unjustifed and untrue by reading every one of my posts in the archves. So, I'll say it again for you, you soplistic, lying, rat prick, Fuck you three times.
And any who support his assesment of me, including those who have said in the past that I was a nice or decent fellow, or a friiend, ___the same to you.

" helped write the NIST report that has been thoroughly discredited. "

The NIST report as a whole is not "discredited" at all. You might make the case here that certain specific aspects are flawed, and I hereby predict that you will fail to do so.

Well well, ~PEACENIKK~ you still refuse to say, or admit, that magnesium fires were present in the two towers. Instead, you bring up a silly, stupid argument, that a light bulb burns at 3,000 degrees. So what, what on earth does that have to do with aircraft magnesium on fire? ___ Answer: "absolutely nothing".

Everyone knows that we can place a piece of tissue paper on a burning 75 watt light bulb and it won't ignite the paper. However, if you set a large hunk of magnesium alloy afire and it's next to a large piece of steel, the steel will melt. You obviously are becoming frustrated there bud, because when challenged, you are unable to give an honest answer to an honest question. ___ Not at all surprised.

Here is an example of how some have attempted to discredit my comments. They write that I wrote, "there are thousands of tons of magnesium in a 757 aircraft". I went back and read every one of my posts and could not find where I wrote that, beginning at
Appril 11th at 1.30 pm. I did ONCE state, that with both aircraft and combined with the thousands of vehicles afire in the basements, there may have been thousands of tons of magnesium, or words to that same effect. ___ And there may have been. I did write "thousands of gallons" of jet fuel.

Then some write, that the investigators have stated, that NO magnesium fires existed. However, earlier on here, several others wrote that magnesium was never mentioned in the 9-11 commission reports and I now find that is so. Guess they never thought of it, they sure as hell should have.

I also have never claimed the fires alone brought the buildings down, so why say I've claimed that. Find any post where I claimed that. I have said I don't believe explosives brought the buildings down. I'm not an engineer, but I watched on TV the second aircraft hit the South Tower and watched both buildings fall. Some of the nuts here have denied aircraft ever struck either building, but you don't attack those silly persons utter stupididy. Of course their on your frame of mind on the issue. Both towers were struck by aircraft and they did fall straight down. ___ Why?

My personal opinion is the hot fires and extremely hot air had weakened the steel beams which held the floors to the central tower. After time the floors began to fall, boom, boom, booom, AFTER the 'extremely hot fires' had weakened the building's central shaft and attached floor beams. It is senselss for anyone to deny the magnesium in the aircraft did not burn and it would have been ferocious, hot fires, hot enough to melt steel beams, both at the attaching areas at the central cores and beneath the concrete floors themselves. It was not just hot fires, It was that and the unusual design of the building in my opinion. But if I state MY opinion, I'm a stupid, no goood troll, who is harming the citizens of our country. Your opinions are facts.

As to building number seven, I have no opinion. I know it was on fire for several hours, had been hit by large portions of another building and or possibly parts of an aircraft wing, there were several thousand gallons of diesel fuel in tanks on the building roof which ruptured the fuel poured into the building and caught fire. And finally the building collapsed, but not straight down. That's all I know about it. About as much as anyone else who blogged here.

Anyone else wish to show their ignorance and claim the aircraft didn't burn. You know, the magnesium fires would clealy explain molten metal in the baements and flowing metal oozing from the side of the building. ___ Light bulbs!!! Oh my God help us all.

Only 114 more postings ALLOWED,

place your bets and spin them wheels

Jake's new Mottos:

When squirtguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have squirtguns.

You can take my squirtgun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Squirtguns don't kill people, people kill people.

Jake:

I read your article from Structure Magazine.

The authors of the magazine, as written in the bio portion at the end of the article were the gatekeepers of what steel got sampled and helped write the NIST report that has been thoroughly discredited.

Calling these people "impartial" or "objective" would be like calling Henry Kissenger "Impartial" and "Objective" when the Bushies nominated him to head the 9/11 commission. If there's one thing we've learned it's that the Bushies demand loyalty. They bought Gilsanz and Ng for that reason.

You have to do better than this Jake. Give me something I can dance to!

"Does anyone know on what grounds they censor you?"

I dunno. They won't let me post links to 911myths either. The moderators are robots mostly, keep that in mind. Try putting a space between each character:

9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m

Please, let him rust in peace

The squirt gun is a dangerous weapon.

The autobot hates 3 or more embeded HTMLs (in a posting) and GGEENNEERRAALL SSTTRRIIKKEE (sometimes)

"So why DID WTC7 collapse?"

Here is one idea, published in Structure Magazine, a peer reviewed professional journal:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

I posted this a couple times already.

Truthtopower: I don't think I've been censored, for what it's worth. Does anyone know on what grounds they censor you? It's not profanity because there's plenty of that. They don't censor for lack of respect for the laws of physics, or else Jake, Kem and Jim Glover's posts wouldn't keep posting tired drivel from www.911debunking. You're not the first person who's mentioned being censored.

I wonder how many people, such as myself, that have been trying to post info, but are censored.

I question this site.

But I thank all of you for keeping the conversation going.

There is a great deal of info regarding the truth out there waiting to be told. Someday, I believe the truth will come out.

Sdemetri, good one. We MAY be able to all agree that torture is bad, even if we can't agree on all the other evils you describe, (Actually I agree with you oni all of them). Kem will probably come back and say that the allegations of torture, inside job, false flag ops are all just part of the "Liberal media" or that somehow they are all the result of magnesium fires.

Jake, I did see the Guitar Queer-o and loved it. The one based on the TV show "24" was pretty hilarious as well. Did you by chance give Steven Jones' paper a perusal? Note he's got a pic of the multi-ton meteorite that is all rusty. See it, the same pic Namaste posted? I'm not a metallurgist, but I'm pretty sure that only Iron and it's alloys rusts. Good thing that FE + H2O = FE3O2 + H2 didn't go up when the photo flash went off because that might have been like the freakin' hindenberg! Good thing your 911 debunking buddies warned us about the hazards of rusting.

"Teh two that hit the towers burned, ____ at 4.000 degrees temp." It seems you are the only one to whom this has any relevance. Have at it, KEM. Beat that horse. Everything else pales in comparison to your exclusive notion. This is your holy grail, the rosetta stone which explains all...(except how the molten metal got under 7...but let's not quibble. It's undignified.)

Let's see, was Cheney in bunker before the pentagon was struck, or after. Who was the young man that questioned the orders to whom Cheney said "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything different?"

At one point they thought there might be as many as eleven unidentified airplanes flying around, each a potential danger to those on the ground, yet, YET, Bush stays at the highly publicized visit to the school for another half an hour, endangering the children, not to mention himself. Oh yeah, and the secret service dude that said at the school when the report came about the second plane hitting the tower, "we're out'a here..." except they weren't, not for a half to forty five minutes later. Had to finish with My little Goat, and get in front of the camera and make a statement to the public how this great country won't countenance terrorist attacks and we will not let them go unanswered...! Never mind, if it was a real terrorist attack, of such sophistication and planning, that the well publicized visit to Sarasota made that school a well publicized target...

No-one had ANY idea terrorists might fly planes into buildings....except those that were simulating that very occurrence on that very same day...

Never mind, no matter... magnesium fires cover it all...

(forgive my appeal to ridicule, but so much of this is just that... ridiculous.)

And "I" am a sorry ass!

Well at least us progressives can agree torture, and rendition, and loss of habeas rights, and illegal surveillance, and fascism, and illegal war, genocide, pre-emptive war, and profiteering, kangaroo tribunals, did I mention torture?... all bad. We can all agree on that, now, can't we? (shills and provocateurs need not answer)

False flag operations? No way, no how. THAT's ridiculous, that's off the table, that's unthinkable. You are a complete nutjob, idiot, wanker if you think that. (forget you ever, ever, ever heard about operation northwoods..., fantasy, never was planned. forget about the uss liberty, never, never, never happened... that captain and crew are all liars.)

Torture though... ok, torture's bad.

Inside job, you f*@#^&%#!king idiot!

War with Iran, no way. Provoked war with Iran, NO F'n WAY...!

Inside job.... what kind of a screaming, lunatic, wanker are you anyway....?

Total information awareness, real ID, surveillance cameras everywhere, did I mention torture?... all bad.

9/11 was an inside job....WHAT KIIND OF A NUTCASE ARE YOU ANYWAY...?

A bit schizo if ya ask me....

"Did you ever see the Southpark where Al Gore is urgently warning the world about the evils of the mythical beast ManBearPig?"

Yes! It was awesome! Algore "flying" around with a cape on going "swoooosshhhh"! It's a play on his Global Warming thing.

More to the point, remember the episode about 911? It was basically a satire of the Loose Change video. After all was said and done with Kartman as the conspiracy theorist, the conclusion was that it was caused by " a bunch of pissed off arabs".

But both of these episodes pale in comparison to the Guitar Hero episode, that was brilliant.

"Jake and Kem are clearly worshipping at the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can't DISprove that magnesium and rust caused the collapse and subsequent molten pools of metals, "

*I* said nothing about Mg. I will take the fact that you said "molten pools of metals" instead of "molten pools of steel" as a small victory though.

Baby steps.

I do like Magnesium Carbonate though. It's always been my favorite of all the carbonates. It occurs locally near me in the serpentinite belts, as a mineral called Magnesite, in hydrothermal veins. I have a very attractive sample on my patio, next to the Winter Savory.

Thanks Moggio. Someone else posted the NY Sun article first though.

Jake and Kem are clearly worshipping at the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can't DISprove that magnesium and rust caused the collapse and subsequent molten pools of metals, so it must be so. Whew! Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster that's all over! Kem and Jake have done it!

Kem wrote:

Now I'll ask you, do you honestly believe that the aircraft did not burn, after they entered the buildings and the resulting massive fuel fires, which burned for almost an hour and the two aircrft laying in that fire didn't burn? Tell me please that they didn't burn. Someone please write it here so we can have you committed, write___ "No the two aircraft which were constructed primarily of magnesium alloys did not burn in the massive fuel fires". ___ Write that.

I'm not saying that the aircraft didn't burn. I'm saying that no reputable investigator, or non-troglodite has cited burning Al/Mg as a cause of the collapse or reason for molten pools of metal. Did you ever see the Southpark where Al Gore is urgently warning the world about the evils of the mythical beast ManBearPig? It's half man, half bear and half pig and it is going to take over the world. Nobody believes him and everyone feels sorry for him and wished he'd shut the fuck up. Magnesium is your ManBearPig, Kem.

Kem also wrote:

However, since that is impossible for anyone, with any common sense or honesty to believe, when the aircraft did indeed have to burn, the temperatures would have been near 4,000 degrees. How hot a fire is required to melt metal? ___ Steel?

And my response to that is:

The filament of a lightbulb burns at about 3000 degrees F. That's enough to melt steel. Oh shit, I have lots of bulbs in my house!! Your red herring here Kem old boy is that temperature is independent of actual caloric content. You can have a small heat source that at 10000 degrees F isn't going to do jack squat to anything. The twin towers weight almost 300,000 tons apiece. Steel has a high thermal conductance, that is it transfers heat very well. Even if you had heat applied at one point, the sheer mass of the buildings wouldn't have caused general failure and multiple fractures of the core columns all up and down the building. And for fuck's sake, not even the govt is making the case that the planes caught fire and caused the collapse.

Kem, you asked me to write something, now you write this: "WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane, it had some small, cool, controllable fires and it got pulled by Larry Silverstien. Then there were big pools of molten metal in the basement even though there was no ManBearPig, I mean magnesium in the building" WRITE IT!

Jake, Alan Firmage is a big dooty head. Sorry, I just thought I'd give you back some of your own type of arguments.

So why DID WTC7 collapse?

A L L -- I think we've ourselves proven the cause

If you lock up an equal number of pro-DEBUNKers and pro-TRUTHers, directly under the plane crash floor, there is a near infinite supply of energy (and associated BS, which all you need is a little diesel fuel to make a OKC style bomb) which would could and DID destroy the towers, in a matter of minutes,

CASE CLOSED, LETS ALL GO HOME

"Also, how did, (could) they match the DNA to these hijackers?"

Don't know how many were matched, but they got samples for two as expained here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

"Your steam-and-steel pseudo-science is wrong on it's face."

It's not my theory. I hereby predict that like Namaste, you will not make any specific challenge to the mechanism described on the page I linked.

"This bloviating wanna-be critique of Steven Jones you directed me to is more Warren Commission type distraction. The technique is called "Argumentum ad absurdum". Reduce all the argument down to one infintesimally small point, (peer review). Then argue vociferously to win that point and act like you won the argument. "

Utter Nonsense. Form the very page I directed you to,:

"I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."

D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Professor Firmage is saying nothing about peer review.

"None of these arguments change the fact that there was molten iron in the basement of WTC7."

What makes you so sure? Just repeating it over and over doesn't. Denial is not an argument.

"A majority of the world's population are skeptical of the official story."

Appeal to Popularity denied.

" feel the need to fight against our sincere desire for the truth? "

If you really seek the truth, you should be familiar with everything your opponents have to say about the subject. Then you should be able to make your own argument against that and have it stand up. You have just been repeating the old argument.

Jim Glover -- Here's some data about steel and WTC

"the Manual restricts open hearth and bessemer steelto 30,000 psi, wrought iron to 25,000 psi, silicon steel to 45,000 psi, and nickel steel to 50,000 psi"

1000 lb/in2 [psi]= 1 ksi

and from wtcmodel . wikidot . com/structural-data-wtc-1-2

Perimeter Column Data

Fourteen grades of steel were used in the construction of the perimeter columns with minimum yield strengths of 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100 ksi. No further information is given on the transition points in the columns from one thickness to another and one grade of steel to another.

Spandrel Data

Referring to the information given on the perimeter columns, the twelve grades of steel used in the spandrels have minimum yield strengths of 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85 ksi.

Core Column Data

There were two types of core columns used in WTC 1 and 2, box columns and rolled wide flange shapes which will be referred to here as I-beams. The yield strengths of the core box columns were 36 ksi or 42 ksi.

Namaste